Literature and Mind Post 5: Monomania and The Female Quixote

In The Female Quixote, how does Arabella's obsession with the behavior that goes into love as shown by that of the ancient romances fit into Van Zuylen's definition of monomania?

          "Ah for Heaven's sake cousin, interrupted Glanville, endeavouring to stifle a Laugh, do not suffer yourself to be governed by such antiquated Maxims! The World is quite different to what it was in those Days; and the Ladies in this Age would as soon follow the Fashions of the Greek and Roman Ladies, as mimick their Manners; and I believe they would become one as ill as the other.
          I am sure, replied Arabella, the World is not more virtuous now than it was in their Days...However, I cannot be persuaded, that Things are as you say, and that when I am a little better acquainted with the World, I shall find as many Persons who resemble Oroondates, Artaxerxes, and the illustrious Lover of Clelia, as those who are like Tiribases, Artaxes, and the presuming and insolent Glanville." (The Female Quixote  p. 45)

"While investigating different manifestations of monomania, I discovered that each one of its enactments is part of an abstract, autonomous desire to reorganize the world according to a long-lost model of wholeness...the French Romantic Charles Nodier calls this affliction monomanie reflective, an introspective form of monomania that must turn the world into a personal absolute, an aestheticized version of itself."  (Monomania pp.5-6).

Within Charlotte Lennox's The Female Quixote, it seems that Arabella could be categorized as struggling with monomania (specifically that which Nodier describes) in regards to her obsession and belief in the archaic ways in which lovers behaved that she reads about in her romances. She definitely has the space necessary to indulge in such  an introspective form, since she lives alone with her women and the Marquis. This does not seem to be the picture of a whole and fulfilled life, which makes it understandable that she would seek her wholeness through romance, but only in the idealized way that has been shown in the books she reads. The rules about love she holds to be true are, in fact, her "personal absolute," which turns out very comical throughout the story. When Glanville attempts to make Arabella face reality and see that nobody else actually follows the rules of decorum that she holds herself and those that interact with her to, she refuses to listen. The reader does see that she finds her life unsatisfying, as she says that "the World is not more virtuous now than it was in their Days," but also sees her blatant denial. She believes that she can go out into the world and find multiple men that will act just like the heroes she holds up to be the best men, but also those that she thinks are villainous. Either way, she believes she will find the world to be what she wants it to be. She has definitely reorganized the world in her mind. Glanville picks up on this and decides he would rather fit the position she has put him in within her mind rather than try to turn her from this obsession.


         

Post 4: Paper 1 Thesis and Example Paragraph

Thesis: "Throughout this story, much of the language about states of mind and emotions, specifically curiosity, seem to generally suggest that the lady is being acted upon by this state of mind and is not in control of what she does because of the use of the noun form of this state. On the other hand, some of the language also demonstrates that the author wants this lady to be held accountable for her actions by the gradual change of the lady’s actions from “frolicks” to “follies” and references to the emotional and mental control that she has over herself. In this way, Hayworth sets up a paradoxical mentality in regards to states of mind like curiosity that seems to maintain the agency that they apparently have while offering the lady up as a character that deserves the punishment she receives in the end."

The agency of curiosity, or the way in which this state along with others acts upon the person rather than being an attribute of a person at a certain moment, begins from the very start of Fantomina. Looking at prostitutes and the kind of attention they received from men at the theater “excited a Curiosity in her to know in what Manner these Creatures were address’d…” (2). Looking at the way this moment is phrased, it appears that the act of seeing the women and the curiosity that is initiated are outside of the lady’s realm of control. The curiosity is an entity in itself, and it perhaps could be seen as dormant within her, without actually being part of the lady herself, until she looks upon these other women. The image does not do anything to the lady that then causes her to have an emotion, but rather directly causes this curiosity to ignite. Hayworth could have said that the lady “became curious” because of this, giving the character the agency, but she instead chooses to have her be the passive recipient of this state of mind.

Literature and Mind Post 3: Curiosity and Desire

Is the protagonist of Eliza Haywood's Fantomina: or, Love in a Maze the "master" of her curiosity" or does her curiosity "master" her?

"And 'tis difficult to determine, if Beauplaisir, or the Lady, were more surpris'd at what they heard; he, that he should have been blinded so often by her Artifices; or she, that so young a creature should have the Skill to make use of them" (Fantomina, p. 17).

"Early modern texts represent this desire as a passion that turns the inquirer into either a savior or a monster, for both trample the conventions of nature, culture, and society. The difference between the two possibilities relies on both the perspective of the writer and the pervious relationship between curiosity as an activity and as an identity. Are inquirers masters of their curiosity, or does their curiosity master them?" ("Curiosity," p. 3)

For most of Eliza Haywood's Fantomina, the protagonist, a lady who is never named, seems to be the "master" of her curiosity. The reader sees her successfully trick the object of her love, (or perhaps simply lust as time goes on)  Beauplaisir, in order to continue to enjoy his company without tarnishing her own reputation. Her curiosity grows from a simple thought about what it would be like to have the attention of a prostitute/mistress to if her next "stratagem" will work. The only reason that she cannot continue to satisfy this curiosity (which definitely has strong links to lust in this story) is that her mother comes into the picture. Even her pregnancy would not have been a problem if she was not under the command of her mother anymore. The quote above comes from the point where curiosity finally "masters" her, and she herself becomes the curiosity. The protagonist is no longer a lady, or even a "nymph," but a "creature." The word "creature" can even be linked to "monster." Her curiosity has caused her to go from an angelic woman of high birth with her virtue in tact to an almost devilish "creature" who blinds with her "Artifices." Of course, the man was not at fault for continuing to see all of this girl's "characters," even the ones he was completely bored with. What is this "Skill" that the mother refers to? Is it intelligence? Is it cunning? It could even be perhaps curiosity in a way, but it is a bad curiosity which leads to ruin (and ending up under the care of an Abbess for the rest of one's life.)
This text seems to shed curiosity in a dangerous, uncontrollable light. Both the protagonist and Beauplaisir get into trouble by acting on their curiosity. Perhaps Beauplaisir comes away unscathed because he did not try to push against social norm, whereas the lady sinned not only by acting on curiosity, but by not living up to the "weak, weeping" reputation of her sex.

Literature and Mind Week 2: Objectivity and Wonder

Robinson Crusoe often uses his "Idols" in the words of Francis Bacon to figure out his next move in light of things such as a footprint or a gunshot, which sometimes is unhelpful, but sometimes can lead to him being successful. Are Bacon's ideas about the gaining of knowledge by pure induction without the use of one's notions actually useful when applied to the strange life of Crusoe?

"This was to be sure a Surprize of a quite different nature from any I had met with before; for the Notions this put into my Thoughts, were quite of another kind. I started up in the greatest haste imaginable, and in a trice clapt my Ladder to the middle Place of the Rock, and mounting it the second Time, got to the Top of the Hill, the very Moment, that a Flash of Fire bid me listen for a second Gun, which accordingly, in about half a Minute I heard; and by the sound, knew that it was from that Part of the Sea where I was driven down the Current of my Boat" (Robinson Crusoe, p. 134).

"There is no soundness in our notions whether logical or physical. Substance, Quality, Action, Passion, Essence itself, are not sound notions: much less are Heavy, Light, Dense, Rare, Moist, Dry, Generation, Corruption, Attraction, Repulsion, Element, Matter, Form, and the like; but all are fantastical and ill defined" ("The New Science" p. 40).

Although there is the obvious connection because Crusoe describes his notions, it seems that this moment in the novel could be showing something that is lacking in the logic of Bacon. Before this moment, the reader saw Crusoe go through the frightening process of discovering who a footprint belonged to. He at first thought it was the Devil, which I would classify as "fantastical" definitely. So perhaps in this situation, Bacon is right that people need to let go of some of the ideas they have in their minds when trying to learn about something new. In the passage above, the reader sees Crusoe experience something new for him on the island-a gunshot of a ship in distress, and the way he addresses and acts in this situation actually seems logical, rational, and the right thing to do. It does help that Crusoe himself had been on a ship in distress and knew exactly how this goes. In the passage above, Crusoe lets his training as a sailor take over, since it is something familiar to him. The way it is described seems as though it was a natural impulse for him to do what he did, but at the same time it was not him acting irrationally.

If the quote by Bacon above is taken as is, Crusoe did the wrong thing because he let his concepts of things, or notions, take over his thinking, without pure, unbiased induction. It is hard to say that if he would have left his home to go investigate without the use of his prior experiences because it could have been a risk, and an unnecessary one at that. But what did he get out of it? He saved a dog's life and found a lot of money and supplies. That seems like a successful outcome to me, and he did it using his notions of what the gunshot meant, where it was coming from, and what happens when a ship wrecks close to his island. When one reads in-depth what Bacon says in "The New Science," a key passage is: "Therefore if the notions themselves...are confused and overhastily abstraced from the facts, there can be no firmness in the superstructure [syllogism]..." (40). He does argue that man inherently confuses his facts through the four kinds of idols, but this quote at least by itself seems like it applies to Crusoe's experiences. When he has concrete, rational explanations from experience for something, he does not impulsively do something that will lead him into trouble, but when he becomes overcome by anxiety and reality is confused, he tends to make mistakes.

Literature and Mind Week 1: Reason and Objectivity

 Is the association between the nerves and sensibility that came around during the second half of the 18th century in part due to the emotional and mental struggles faced by the various classes?

"...that mine was the middle State, or what might be called the upper Station of Low Life, which he had found by long Experience was the best State in the World, the most suited to human Happiness, not exposed to the Miseries and Hardships, the Labour and Sufferings of the mechanick Part of Mankind, and not embarrass'd with the Pride, Luxury, Ambition and Envy of the upper Part of Mankind. " (Robinson Crusoe, 5).

"The lower, plodding, labouring classes are spared these agonies. It was comforting for those living a cosseted life to be told by their medical advisors that their ailments were not due to character or spiritual weaknesses but to real physical causes" (Smith 21).

 In Smith's article, "Brain and Mind in the 'Long' Eighteenth Century," the author describes Haller's assertions that the nerves are connected to the concept of "sensibility," and how many believed that the upper classes had weaker nerves, which lead to "nervous disorders." The lower classes did not suffer from this delicacy, so they did not suffer the same kind of issues. In the quote from Robinson Crusoe shown above, the protagonist's father is trying to convince his son that the best thing for him to do would be to go into law or business so that he could be part of "the middle state." Although the quote is not talking directly about "nervous disorders," one can see that the "mechanick Part of Mankind" or the lower classes, have struggles that are related to the physical world they are in according to the father. On the other hand, the problems of the "upper Part of Mankind" are more related to the mind, such as pride, ambition, and envy. It seems that members of the lower class could struggle with problems like "pride," but the important message here is that "pride" is one of the worst and most powerful issues that the upper classes face. Keeping this in mind, the quote by Robinson's father seems to follow very closely to the theories about the upper classes having "weaker nervers" and being more prone to the "nervous disorders," even though the novel was written before these ideas were explicitly declared by scientists like Haller. Ideas like those given by Crusoe's father in the novel probably influenced the ideas of those studying nerves, since they were prevalent in the world they were living in, and objectivity had not come into play just yet.